I found this product fascinating. There may be (digital) life in my 4x5 field view camera!!! The idea of using the 4x5 body with tilt/swings and the sliding adapter plates for stitching images sounds like fun.

But help me understand the crop factor in this setup. Is the following correct? My 4x5 film yielded a diagonal of 155mm. My APS-C dslr has a diagonal of 26.7mm. Full frame (35mm) diagonal is 43.2mm. If I put my 210mm view camera lens to use with my view camera and this adapter and my APS-C digital body, will my single image crop factor be........ (155/26.7) = 5.8? And therefore, the 210 mm 4x5 lens on the view cam with my APS-C body attached would be the 35mm equivalent of a 210mm X 5.8 = 1218mm lens?

There's no crop factor at all. A 210mm lens will be a 210mm lens, and with a single image you will have a telephoto field of view just like a normal 210mm lens on the 35mm camera would have. Start stitching 35mm images together and you will capture a wider field of view.

What Sheldon says, except that the smaller APS-C sensor will be able to cover a smaller area of the frame on each shot as it is slid across the image (verticals obviously cover more ground). I think the system is designed more for the full frame 35mm cameras, but there is not reason an APC body wouldn't work.

In terms of the math, you would end up with a tighter crop and, unless you use of the their fancier backs that allows three rows of shots, the stitched frame will be more horizontal.

Still, a neat solution for now a ton of money. While moving the adapter does vibrate the view camera a bit, this should be immaterial for stitches on static landscape subjects.

I guess I'm not understanding something. For example, with DSLR's the lens, based on its focal length, projects a certain field of view/image circle. With full frame sensors, the sensor or 35mm film intersects a certain portion of the image circle and we've gotten used to that from years and years of film and therefore, call that "normal". If we have a smaller sensor with the same lens, it intersects a smaller portion of the same image circle, so it appears to be a higher focal length view, ie the crop factor.

How is it any different with a view camera lens and the dslr sensor? The view lens projects a large image circle that is usually intersected by a 4x5 piece of film with a big diagonal. Now we stick the "little" DSLR sensor into the image circle, and it is only seeing a small portion of the image. Isn't that the same thing? Except it would result in a much higher crop factor than APS-C vs full frame.

You're absolutely right. The only twist is that these adapters allow the 35mm mount to move around to 4x5 image-area, taking multiple shots, which you then stitch. The APS-C sensor captures a smaller rectangle of light out of the bigger 4x5 field on each 'move'. Therefore, assuming the camera is positioned vertically, you take out a narrower (more horizontal) sliceof the image as you draw the the camera across the image field taking pictures.

Does that description help make sense of this? It's one of those easy-when-you-see-it but hard to describe in words things.

The confusion may be that 4x5 users are comfortable calling this a 210mm lens, without having to say that it is a "60mm equivalent" (compared to 35mm), with a crop factor of 0.3

But if you prefer that terminology, it is a "210mm equivalent" on a 35mm sensor and (210/(26.7/43.2)) = "340mm equivalent" on an APS-C sensor. Of course if you do enough stitching to cover the original 4x5 field of view, then it is back to "60mm equivalent".

I wonder about the quality of of most 4x5 lenses for doing this, modern dslrs are already maxing the very best 35mm format lenses we have which are substantially better. I suspect investing in a pano rig may be a better option.

I wonder about the quality of of most 4x5 lenses for doing this, modern dslrs are already maxing the very best 35mm format lenses we have which are substantially better. I suspect investing in a pano rig may be a better option.

I can testify of Shen-Hao having really good products. They actually made me a "prototype" custom made sliding adapter for my Leaf digital back around three years ago, per my concept and design. I sold that one to a gent who replaced his current model Mamiya sliding adapter, because mine was lighter weight, better made, and he said the precision totally acceptable. It is very pleasant to see what they have further developed which looks clever for market and to use with DSLR, and of course I was happy to be part of their initial investigations per say . In honesty I do not know the precision on these adapters they now make. My best guess is that from when they made mine they should know about precisions required for digital. Mine was for my then 28MP Leaf digital back. Lenses I tried with it were Schneider SA 72mm XL, Rodenstock Sironar-N 150mm, Schneider SA 58mm XL. The 72 and 150 were at least as sharp as nearly all Mamiya 645 AF lenses I have owned, thus I mean sharp. The 58 was not so good, but that may be because everything was so small on my groundglass due to that it was a very wide lens. I assume with the ones for DSLR you will focus using the DSLR.

The other year I sold off near all my camera gear, but my Shen-Hao TFC 45-II B is a keeper, along with my upgrade to Rolleiflex Hy6 and 80MP Leaf back. The TFC 45-II B may be a good choice for their adapters, because it is a non folding camera and thus the back standard of camera is more rigid than a folder. The Shen-Hao cameras are simply wonderful craftmanships to work with. Of course, you may also wish to pick up a couple of film holders and attempt to use film. It is nice to experience that as well.

I wonder about the quality of of most 4x5 lenses for doing this, modern dslrs are already maxing the very best 35mm format lenses we have which are substantially better. I suspect investing in a pano rig may be a better option.

Well, movement can potentially be great with those, but it already is pretty challenging to get accurate focus when using movement with 4x5 not featuring asymmetric tilt, I expect it to be very challenging with DSLR type of resolution. Confirming the focus in various part of the intended image circle by moving the DSLR on the adapter and iterating with tilt would end up being a cumbersome experience.

Leaving movement aside, I don't see any value compared to spherical stitching:- spherical stitching is faster,- you have a lighter kit that can fold more compact and is totally bullet proof,- you only use the central part of better resolving lenses.

So it can be fun to play with if you have lots of time on your hands...

I had a similar concept to this in the Camera Fusion adaptor and have to agree with Bernard. Spherical is faster and easier, lighter and quicker.

Indeed. I have being doing this with only a levelling base in terms of gear investment for landscape photography since switching from film. For architectural or product work perhaps it is useful if you are on a tight budget. It seems like a pain to use and I am far from convinced even my best LF lens can deal with sections of 36MP stitched together.

Something like a horseman vcc and a digitar lens may be ideal but a quite a cost.

I am far from convinced even my best LF lens can deal with sections of 36MP stitched together.

Per my experience on 28MP Leaf back;Schneider 72mm XL Super Angulon is very sharp and should be fine.Likewise the low cost used Rodenstock 150mm Sironar-N

Digital large format lenses will be sharper yet but will not provide the image circle necessary. There was a discussion on getdpi some time back of Rodney Lough Jr using the Schneider 80mm XL Super Angulon with digital back on an Alpa for large format stitching and that one was said to be very sharp. Check the specs (weight), per what I was told by Schneider the 72mm is sharper since the 80 made more to be light for ease of carry.

Is it worth effort? It is a different approach. For large format stiching movements using the adapters asummably are on 4x5 terms and can be adjusted on 4x5 groundglass Fine focus can be made when using dslr. i believe will work.

Bill Maxwell makes very bright groundglass,

Of course a single frame of 4x5 film is a mere one shot in comparison and alot simpler than any panoramic stitch.

Of course a single frame of 4x5 film is a mere one shot in comparison and alot simpler than any panoramic stitch.

Frankly, I am not even sure that is true.

All things taken into account, I would say it is about as time consuming to take a one sheet of film with 4x5 as it is to take an 8 images spherical pano. And that is of course without even taking into account the huge time needed to Imacon scan a sheet of film and totally remove the dust specs from it.

If you start to use movements on the 4x5, then it takes several times longer.

4x5 is a lot of fun, but nowadays it is rarely the superior solution from a quality/effectiveness standpoint unless:- you are after a certain look,- you need large/complex movements.

All things taken into account, I would say it is about as time consuming to take a one sheet of film with 4x5 as it is to take an 8 images spherical pano. And that is of course without even taking into account the huge time needed to Imacon scan a sheet of film and totally remove the dust specs from it.

If you start to use movements on the 4x5, then it takes several times longer.

4x5 is a lot of fun, but nowadays it is rarely the superior solution from a quality/effectiveness standpoint unless:- you are after a certain look,- you need large/complex movements.

Cheers,Bernard

Setting up for a 4x5 shot is very simple. Comparing scanning vs stitching in computer?? You can scan on a lower cost Epson scanner and still yield excellent results. Heck I am considering picking up some B&W film to try and simply place in a modern conventional scanner or setting up infront of my 80MP leaf back...

I would argue that it is far simpler to arrive at good images using 4x5 than stitching by rotating a dslr, based on that very few people seem to be able produce very good images with rotate camera stitching technique. I suppose now is when you will post one of yours again Bernard? With much respect, you are one who have specialized at this. Thus I suggest you not post to and wait to see if someone else have a really good one?

For 4x5, suggest then to make a search of Ansel Adams, Jack Dykinga, Joe Cornish, Tim Parkin.

And yes the process is different. With 4x5 it is something more methodologic, and the viewing of the subject upside down on a large 4x5 groundglass "display", It is well wortwhile to upgrade the Shen Hao groundglass to one from Bill Maxwell who makes arguably the brightest available. My own 4x5 experience is limited but I keep my Shen Hao for the experience again. it is that much enjoyable way to work, slow and purposefully.

Setting up for a 4x5 shot is very simple. Comparing scanning vs stitching in computer??

Taking an image with a 4x5 camera involves:- Unfolding the camera, more or less fast depending on type,- [option] set the lens if it is not set yet,- [option] set filter holder on the lens if needed,- [option] mount lens shade,- set the cloth,- screw in the release cable,- remove the GG cover,- frame,- pre-focus,- apply movements if needed- adjust focus by using a loupe in one or several parts of the GG,- measure the scene with a light meter (in itself this takes a bit of time - need to check ISO setting,...),- add center filter to lens if you shoot wide,- compute modification of exposure taking into account the bellow extension, center filter, other filters,...- set apeture and diafragm (typically need to move around the camera to do it),- close shutter- cork the shutter- insert the film holder- wait for wind to slow down to reduce below induced vibrations,- take 3 bracketed exposures to be sure to have one right

So there is nothing simple about this process... it is, as you rightfully put it, "slow".

I am also using a Maxwell goundglass on my Ebony 45SU.

As far as scanning goes, there is also nothing simple if you want a good quality. Epson doesn't make sense with 4x5, you waste half of the detail and 1/3 of the DR. And this is coming from someone who owns both a 750 and an Imacon Flextight.

Regarding stitching, I don't understand your comment. There are hundreds of photographers on LL alone who routinely use stitching to produce many successful images. If you are able to identify a candidate image for your 4x5 camera of MFDB, then you can apply any technique to capture it. Stitching is just that, a capture technique.

You may be referring to the difficulty of framing without a physical frame? Many photographers can deal with that.

Oh dear, once again we disagree Bernard and you keep arguing out your particular means for photography...

I find it literally simpler to set up my Shen-Hao TFC45-IIB. The only reason I not use it much is because I am digital with digital back. No, I did not like digital back with a stitching adapter on 4x5, but these adapters for dslr from Shen-Hao seem to result in one thing, an even larger image capture area not far from 4x5 size. That means you can compose and adjust tilts and swings on the 4x5 groundglass!

Yes, you will get more out of drumscan from a 4x5, but you can also get very respectable quality also from an Epson. Heck I even gotten that from 6x7

No, it is not as complicated with 4x5 as your list implies. That is BS

No, I have not seen many high quality photos by people making round stitching, but I gave respect to you because you have developed it towards mastering it more than anyone else. Who else have done so, I know of nil? I suspect that is because the focus is all on the technology rather than the image. Plus... that very few are capable to visualize the image because effectively the view (width/image area or equivalent focal) changes, and no there is means such as a groundglass or viewfinder used to compose the image! The one who have best composed stitched images by rotating camera is B. Rubenstein over on getdpi. He uses a zoom lens to compose at one end and then do his stitches at other end of the lens, hence compose his image first on "half the 35mm frame".

One essence with 4x5 and larger cameras is that you can visualize the image on a large 4" x 5" display (groundglass), or even larger!

We do agree on Maxwell screen. Many times I do not even need a dark cloth due to the Maxwell screen, but using one adds to the pleasant experience

So there is nothing simple about this process... it is, as you rightfully put it, "slow".

I am also using a Maxwell goundglass on my Ebony 45SU.

As far as scanning goes, there is also nothing simple if you want a good quality. Epson doesn't make sense with 4x5, you waste half of the detail and 1/3 of the DR. And this is coming from someone who owns both a 750 and an Imacon Flextight.

Regarding stitching, I don't understand your comment. There are hundreds of photographers on LL alone who routinely use stitching to produce many successful images. If you are able to identify a candidate image for your 4x5 camera of MFDB, then you can apply any technique to capture it. Stitching is just that, a capture technique.

Even my simple non-folding Ebony RSW45 is a pain to use and has a load of way to screw up. But the in-field pain is nothing compared to trying to load the film holders in the dark without a speck of dust landing on the film now quickload is gone Developing isn't easy either, no easy tank based solutions like roll film. I don't understand going through the trouble of lf and then scanning using an epson and even an imacon can only scan 4x5 at a limited resolution.

Spherical stitching is a piece of cake, almost all of my landscapes are shot this way and a 9-12 frame stitch takes well under a minute, I've even stitched handheld pictures together from places I couldn't take a tripod with no problems at all, I just throw them all a photoshop's photomerge and it copes easily as long as there is enough overlap. The results printed large are brilliant; uninterpolated wall size prints.

Oh dear, once again we disagree Bernard and you keep arguing out your particular means for photography...

No I am not, I am just commenting on the effectiveness of a technique, I shoot 4x5 too and love it. Stitching is not mine but having practised both extensively I believe I can comment on their respective merits.

Anders, I love the Shen-Hao, and working with film (their 11x14 was my singular object of lust at Photokina), but you're alone on this one buddy

Using a 4x5 in the field (indeed even getting to where you can use it - which means loading film), is a detailed, methodical and at times delicate procedure. Worth it to many, but acres less easy than pointing a DSLR.

You are right that few people do *spherical* stitches well, in part bc of challenges with pre-visualization. I was very surprised to find out how hard it was to envision a 35mm field of view shot with a 50mm lens when I first tried this back with my D60 almost a <gasp> decade ago. But the odds of succeeding, for someone new to either form, is much higher with digital capture.

The real achilles-heel of film, however, is scanning. You may be the only human alive who doesn't hate scanning film. More time, sanity and image quality has been lost infilm scanning than anywhere else. It is the photographic equivalent on a colonoscopy. Raw digital (and analog-printed film) kick the shit out of anything other than the very best drum-scanning on the very best scanners, calibrated by the best techs, and charged at the very top dollar. Scanning is simply the weakest (or most costly) part of any workflow. This is why I don't think people see 4x5 and DSLR stitching asalternatives to one another.